The party machinery is, by definition, anti-primary. It dislikes giving Democrats a choice at the ballot box, perfectly content to let incumbents remain unaccountable to their party partisans. I've long held that primaries are generally useful things, testing candidates, helping build early organization, refining messaging, and so on. And it's essentially (small "d") democratic, requiring elected officials to have a regular "job review" from the voters, both from their party, and in the general with their entire constituency. Heck, in many states and districts, the primary might be the ONLY place incumbents can be held accountable. A small minority of general elections are actually competitive because of partisan polarization. (Same dynamic applies to GOP-held seats, obviously.)
But there is perhaps no place where this DSCC anti-democratic tendency is more egregious than in Colorado, where the DSCC is aggressively trying to keep former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff from challenging appointed Sen. Michael Bennet.
Bennet was appointed to his seat, not elected. He has never been elected to anything before. He is untested in a campaign setting, has never had to sell himself to the voters, has never had to craft a campaign message, has never had to build a field operation. But rather than test him in a primary before Democrats put all their eggs on the Bennet basket, the DSCC is doing what it can to clear the primary field for an incumbent nominated to the seat in an undemocratic process. Their director of communications, Eric Schultz, has spent the last few weeks sending out to their media list negative articles about Romanoff, like this one.
I'm agnostic in this potential Romanoff-Bennet primary, but the more the DSCC meddles, the more I want Romanoff to run. The Senate is where good legislation goes to die, and Bennet was certainly part of the problem. Look at Bennet on the public option back on August 22:
"I've said I support a public option if it's properly designed," he told me. "It can't be designed along the model of Medicare. I'm clear about my focus but I'm not drawing lines in the sand. You'll have made the situation worse if the public plan doesn't drive down costs."
Or here, on August 18:
Bennet, speaking after the meeting, said reform shouldn't hinge on the public option, though he has said he supports it.
"I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand," he said.
Kind of wishy washy, and he certainly wasn't expending any energy pushing for it. Suddenly, Romanoff makes noise about a primary challenge, and Bennet is all eager to dispel the "confusion" about his commitment to the public option.
These Senators will always take the path of least resistance, and currently, that is the lobbyist cocktail party (and check writing) circuit. It's only when they fear the wrath of the voters that they perk up and start doing the right thing.
The DSCC, of course, has no interest in good policy and good governance. And it's not really their job. Their job is to elect Democrats, be they of the good or bad variety. But when that mission cross over into the undemocratic desire to deprive voters of a choice, then it's our job to push back.
I don't know if Romanoff would be a better Democrat than Bennet. A campaign would help make that determination. But choice is good, and it certainly has lit a fire under Bennett's ass, helping to push him the right direction on policy. With a little more primary pressure, Bennet might even be "persuaded" to take a position on EFCA, and rethink his opposition to cramdown legislation (which he voted against, and will soon be back).
The DSCC doesn't like such pressure, sure, but the party doesn't always know (or care) what's best for the party.